Opinion | Maggie Simmons: When the punishment doesn’t fit the crime

If you live in Southern Illinois, you’ve probably heard about the Gaege Bethune trial. There are many unknown facts in this case, but if you’re like me, you have formed an opinion on what could have happened to Pravin Varaguese. You probably know what outcome you believe is just. And we can probably all agree that in America, the punishment should fit the crime.

There’s one thing that isn’t so clear though: felony murder. I’m a senior law student, but I didn’t understand felony murder until I did some research. What I found was disturbing — in Illinois, you can be charged with first-degree murder without having killed anyone.

Gaege Bethune has been accused of first-degree felony murder. Although they hold the exact same sentence, first-degree felony murder and first-degree murder have some very important differences.

Regular first-degree murder means that a person planned, and intentionally killed, another person. First-degree felony murder, however, doesn’t require planning. It doesn’t require intent. It doesn’t even require that the accused was at fault for the murder.

According to Illinois law, an individual could be convicted of murder if someone died during the commission of a felony, even if the individual did not intend for a death to occur. (This rule has been applied broadly to cases in which individuals had no knowledge a murder had occurred.) Simply being connected to a felony crime in some way, however small the connection, allows the state to charge an individual with murder. An individual can go to prison on the taxpayer’s dollar, for first-degree murder, even if that individual didn’t kill anyone. How is that possible?

Felony murder is easier to understand with an example:

In Illinois in 2008, three teens broke into a home while two friends waited outside. A person inside the home, surprised by the burglars, shot and killed one of the boys. The shooter wasn't prosecuted for the killing because he acted in self-defense, but two of the teenage boys were charged with first-degree murder.

The reasoning is this: These teenagers are bad enough to steal a car, so they’re bad enough to be locked up for first degree murder. If we charge them with first-degree murder, it will deter others from committing these crimes.

The felony murder rule originated in English courts in the mid-thirteenth century. England, India, Canada, Northern Ireland and Australia, whose laws were also formed from English courts, have all abolished the felony murder rule stating that it is unjust. Other countries have never had such a law.

The United States is slowly starting to abolish felony murder. Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Michigan have abolished felony murder. Other states, with support from both Republicans and Democrats, are currently considering an end to felony murder.

Illinois, however, has one of the broadest felony murder rules in the United States, often affecting juveniles who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You may believe felony murder is a good rule, and that it deters criminals from committing crimes. You may believe all criminals deserve a harsh sentence. I find it unlikely that criminals are deterred by the felony murder rule. Like me, they probably don’t understand felony murder. Some aren’t aware that felony murder exists at all.

I too believe that criminals should be held accountable for their crimes. But does stealing a car deserve the same punishment as first-degree murder? What about a fist fight between two teenagers?

There are times when we are faced with terrible tragedies. It’s normal for us to wish to hold someone accountable. That’s exactly how it should be. But individuals should be held accountable for crimes they commit. Nobody should be charged with first degree murder if they didn’t kill anyone — when they never could have imagined someone would die. I challenge you to put the opinions of others out of your mind. Consider how you may feel if this rule affected someone you knew. Would you feel it was just if that person was charged with murder for burglarizing a store? Stealing a car? Getting in a fight?

Many things in the Gaege Bethune case do not sit right with me, but one thing is for sure — the punishment should fit the crime, and that is not the case with Illinois’ felony murder rule.

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Maggie Simmons is a senior law student at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(7) comments

I'm not sure you have done enough research in the referenced case. I agree that the tone you used when refencing the Bethune case makes your thoughts on it clear. But whether you agree or disagree with the law and the punishment..in the case you referenced the defendant was offered a plea deal of much less that the minimum of 20 years and turned it down. I believe if you had ALL the facts of the case you would see this as much more than just a fist fight and the way this case was handled by those in power have been beyond belief. Maybe you could do an article on how a defendant can fire his attorney days before sentencing (and yet this attorney continues to be involved) in order to delay sentencing and how often a judge allows a case to proceed up to and including a guilty verdict until the day of sentencing and throws out the verdict based on a single word (that I guess he just discovered?) in the indictment? Stating while doing so that there was plenty of evidence to convict, he didn't believe the jury was confused by it (but just in case...), and there was no misconduct during trial. ONE WORD.....immediately preceding his retirement and only decided to notice or act on this ONE WORD hours before sentencing? So much seems shady...from the SA's treatment of the victim and his family, his inaction, the last minute power plays and a last hour save by a sentencing judge. Take the time to REALLY check out this case....not only was it not just s fist fight but has so many signs of possible corruption.

Maggie, I am also from Southern Illinois and have taken interest in this case. I am not a senior law student, but I have done quite a bit of research on the felony murder rule. With any crime, I think everyone will agree that the punishment should fit the crime. Absolutely! The crime of first degree felony murder in Illinois carries a Mandatory Minimum Sentence of 20 years. The law currently states that a Judge has the discretion of handing down a sentence for the convicted of 20-60yrs. I have researched and found convictions for this crime that seemed to most certainly warrant at least 20 years. In other cases of conviction, I just can't imagine the person getting more than 5 or 10. Sentencing should be a discretionary issue for the Judge to decide, in my opinion, on a case by case basis. With that being said, research also shows that certain groups of people were receiving very harsh sentences for this crime while others were being given substantially less time for the same type crimes. As you are aware, sentencing is a completely separate court proceeding that happens after a jury has decided the case. The jury, many may not know, have nothing to do with the sentencing process. Their sole goal is to listen to the evidence and decide a verdict. Sentencing issues aside, let's talk about the crime itself. In this particular case, the jury found the defendant Guilty on one of the two counts of first degree felony murder. By the tone of your article, it appears that your belief is Gaege Bethune simply was at the wrong place at the wrong time and had done nothing more than engage in a fist fight with another person his age. If this case were that simple or if that theory was even the cut and dry truth, I may feel a little less disturbed by your article.

Just to mention a few pieces of evidence put in front of the jury at trial, 1.)Bethune is shown on the dashcam of an Illinois State Trooper. He was very obviously unscathed by the alleged altercation he had just been in. 2.)Pravin Varughese sustained numerous injuries, including a head injury that Bethune testified to being administered by a blow from his own fist. 3.)Pravin had a clean toxicology report free from drugs and alcohol. 4.)The cousin of Bethune gave an interview to police ,which was shown on video to the jury, with him explaining to police that Bethune told him that after he had hit Pravin, Pravin was having trouble walking..he was limping..and having trouble getting over the fence. 5.)In police interview No.1 played in court, Bethune stated that he had also his Pravin the in mouth busting his lip. He said he hit him dead square in the face, he said he may have hit him in the side of the head, the back of the head. He also termed Pravin as "dead weight" after explaining that Pravin had fallen into him after he struck him.

On numerous occasions Bethune had opportunity to make sure Pravin was found and/or saved. From the numerous statements I just explained, it is totally reasonable to conclude Bethune knew that Pravin was hurt or compromised from the blows he inflicted. He even mentioned that it was too cold for himself to stand outside his truck for 10 minutes. Any reasonable person would conclude that if it is too cold to stand outside for 10 minutes with all your faculties, it most definitely could be dangerous for someone you just inflicted blows to that you described as having a limp or "not able to walk right" that stumble off into a wooded area.

Instead of telling the police officer the truth, Bethune decided on a story that a black hitchhiker had been right there on the road and he picked him up only to be robbed. All of us have the benefit of knowing what became of Pravin. At that moment, the officer had ONLY the information Bethune gave him. Hitchhiker, tried to rob him, and he is "right down there". The officer was not told that Bethune had allegedly been riding around for 30 minutes with an uncooperative passenger that he made a last ditch effort to drive him away from the town he was in to go find someone to help him remove this passenger from his vehicle. The officer was not told that Gaege had noticed that after he hit Pravin he seemed to be compromised and unable to navigate the fence at the bottom of that hill at the woodline. None of that information was given by Bethune to that officer.

When a jury considers a case, they look at the totality of many, many pieces of evidence and listen to the testimony of many witnesses. In this case, the jury spent two weeks listening to testimony, watching police video interviews of the defendant and the tipster who told on him. They also had the benefit of hearing the defendant testify for nearly 4 hours. The jury found him guilty. I believe they got it right.

The was the law is written, it states that if you commit an aggravated battery and that act sets into motion a chain of events that leads to the death of another person, you can be held accountable. In this case, the evidence proved that. What amount of time should someone spend in jail for this exact crime? I don't know that I have an answer for that. 20-60? I personally feel that is excessive. 3, 5, 10? Maybe.

I must point out that your tone in this article is a bit upsetting. I find it distasteful that you didn't even spell the name right of the victim. It is Pravin Varughese! It isn't a secret that Mr. Bethune has a fairly odd spelling of his first name. You seemed to nail that one, though. Details are important, especially if you are trying cases concerning crimes like the one committed in this case. Someone died as a result of the actions or lack thereof by another. One paragraph in your article seems to condescend the family in this case or a case like it for wanting justice for their child. Maybe that is a misinterpretation by me, but the way it reads feels like you are conveying that this death or one in a situation similar is just kind of like an... oh well. Sorry your family member died, but it was no responsibility of the person who directly contributed to the death.

I don't know to what extent you have researched the facts of this particular case, but maybe another look at the entire transcript from court would be beneficial for you.

Thank you for your summary. I acknowledged the misspelling of Pravin’s name, and I apologized for it. I attempted to analyze this specific legal theory, not the jury’s consideration of it or the particular facts of the case. I apologize if you misinterpreted the tone of my article, or disagree with my opinion on the Felony Murder Rule. I absolutely meant no disrespect towards anyone involved, and I did not intend to devalue the severity of the situation in any way. My intention was to analyze the felony murder doctrine and explain it to those that do not understand it. I intentionally left out my opinion on the specifics, because I analyzed this theory as a whole, and not only as it relates to this case. Respectfully, Maggie Simmons

The flaw in the law of felony murder is that the felons are not promptly executed.

There are crimes that puts people's lives in danger. Burglary, robbery, car jacking, and kidnapping are all good examples. There is an enhanced chance that someone will die i the commission of those crimes. The victim, and in many cases any good samaritan, has the legal right to kill the criminal. If anyone dies, then everyone involved in the crime participated in that death, as it would not have happened if the crime had not been committed.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.